Sports of The Times; A Partisan Spin on Title IX

By WILLIAM C. RHODEN

Published: April 22, 1995

BALTIMORE—
FOR the last two days, 200 college athletic administrators have sat in meeting rooms listening, debating, negotiating. One side -- mostly male -- contemplated how to give, while the other side -- mostly female -- considered how to take a fair share for women in intercollegiate athletics.

This two-day symposium, the second in a series sponsored by the National Collegiate Athletic Association, was intended to educate athletic personnel about the complexities of complying with the Education Amendment Act of 1972. Title IX of the act is devoted to "non-discrimination on the basis of sex in education programs and activities receiving Federal financial assistance."

Speaker after speaker expressed degrees of exasperation -- either with the futility of trying to comply with Title IX, or with having to prod school officials into compliance. Ultimately, the questions here boiled down to what they always have boiled down to: What does Title IX really mean, and what constitutes compliance?

During one session, a panel headed by Norma Cantu, Assistant Secretary of Education for Civil Rights, attempted to give answers: A violation could be not offering a team that should be offered; not offering enough scholarships to one sex; not providing enough coaches in one program; not providing facilities for teams of one sex; spending substantially disproportionate funds for recruitment.

While this session was taking place, the Women's Sports Foundation held an "underground" news conference one floor below. Using charts and graphs to make her points, Donna Lopiano, the foundation's fiery executive director, laid out the framework of the deepening, longstanding conflict between gender-equity advocates and those forces who feel that Title IX compliance, as currently structured, means gains for women, losses for men.

Aside from being off base, the opponents of equity are blind to recent history. Before Title IX, intercollegiate athletics for women was inconsistent, condescending and unfulfilling. The N.C.A.A. confined its services and programs to male student athletes. It was only in 1980 that the N.C.A.A. finally voted to hold Division I women's championships.

I asked Lopiano, formerly the director of women's athletics at the University of Texas, what she thought about the seminar. Specifically, what did she think about the seemingly heartfelt expressions of confusion by officials asking about compliance?

"What they are trying to do is twofold," she said. "Some of the people asking questions legitimately want to know how to comply with Title IX. But a lot of them want to find out how much they can get away with."

Athletic directors do not have to cut men's programs in order to sponsor women's. What they must do is deflate bloated costs and perks in football megaprograms and trim costs across the board.

If you truly want to fund female sports, force Division I football teams to set a 66-player limit. Nebraska took 140 players to the Orange Bowl; the San Francisco 49ers won the Super Bowl with 43 players. One athletic director attending the symposium said that if he cut 20 football scholarships, he'd save a quarter of a million dollars in scholarships alone.

Want to fund women's sports? Mandate that no coach will make more than the highest-paid professor on campus. Period. Coaches like to compare themselves to professors, so universities should pay them as if that is what they were.

This won't happen because weak-kneed pigskin presidents, afraid of offending powerful football interests, would rather cut men's programs and blame gender equity. Some would rather huddle with university attorneys to find ways of circumventing the rules altogether.

Late last month, a Federal Court judge ruled Brown University was in violation of Title IX. Before the equity advocates could celebrate a significant victory, however, Brown announced it was appealing the decision.

Brown has the financial resources to fight, but the women have the law on their side and, beyond that, a deeply rooted moral imperative.

Women's intercollegiate athletics, after decades of being shortchanged, is moving forward with a vengeance. The impetus will not be slowed by ticky-tack sidestepping or lobbying.

Equal access for female athletes -- high school and college -- is mandated by law. For those who attempt circumvention, the new line of scrimmage will be the courtroom.